Trial reportBMC medical education2026
From image to clinical judgment: a randomized near-peer teaching trial on systematic chest radiograph interpretation.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest radiograph (CXR) interpretation remains a fundamental yet challenging skill for undergraduate medical students, requiring both perceptual and integrative reasoning. Near-peer instruction and structured checklists have been proposed to enhance learning, but evidence from randomized designs is limited.
methodsWe conducted a randomized educational trial among final-year medical students (n = 50). All participants attended a two-hour lecture on CXR interpretation delivered by intensive care medicine residents. The intervention group received additional training using a systematic checklist for image analysis. Performance was assessed through a 16-item test (interpretation and diagnosis domains). Nonparametric tests and Spearman correlations were applied; internal consistency and item discrimination were analyzed.
resultsCompared with controls, the intervention group achieved higher median scores in interpretation (6 vs. 3), diagnosis (4 vs. 3), and total score (10 vs. 6) (all p < 0.05). Interpretation and diagnosis scores were not correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.12, p = 0.40). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.592, with 56% of items showing excellent discrimination.
conclusionsA brief, resident-led, checklist-guided session significantly improved CXR interpretation and overall performance. Structuring perceptual search through systematic frameworks can rapidly strengthen diagnostic foundations and represents a feasible, low-cost addition to medical curricula.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.